Should a Remake be just the original game with updated graphics?

Or be a completely different game just using the story, characters and environment of the original?
What type of remake do you enjoy more?

Attached: 3214326crashps4_5_ec9c67b964674e1882f82e537de827b7.png (1701x955, 1.95M)

I prefer when they stick to the original as much as they can.

It’s a case by case situation but usually just updated graphics + quality of life + ideally some extra content that does not take away from anything

>Or be a completely different game just using the story, characters and environment of the original?
Isn's that called a sequel?

Depends. If the game was a shit game with flawed design that had potential, then the game should be changed to address the problems of the original.

If a game's graphics have aged poorly, then a graphical enhancement is justified. Some people get confused and think that any old game can benefit from a graphic enhancement, but this is definitely not the case. The Link to the Past remake is a good example of a game which sorely needed a graphical update.

If the game is considered a classic, then there's no point of changing the story, characters, environment or gameplay, because then that's completely missing the point of what made it classic in the first place. That's why the gameplay changes to Majora's Mask were completely misguided and unneeded.

Now that I think of it you are right... For example FF7 is one of those few games that benefit from changing a lot of the core stuff but Crash Or Resident Evil dont really need that because they still feel good now.

That should be the Link's Awakening remake (senior moment).

Remakes should 100% have cut content and/or bonus stuff.

up graphics + nice NEW shit is welcome

Usually yeah but not this time

In arts remakes are supposed to be new works based on previous work. An another take basically

>ratchet and clank on ps4

In vidya shit is weird brah, Remasters are in reality ports 95% of the time maybe with a shit filter added while Remakes are usually the true Remasters when they dont change a lot of the game obv

Yes, if they're going to change stuff might as well just make a new game entirely.

It's not a remake if they change the story and use the same characters and environment.

That's called a reboot.

Here’s how I can see

You can do the Grim fandango and offer so much as a literal button to switch Between new and old graphics

You can be CTR which brings back all that good shit plus extra

Don’t be ratchet and clank 2016.

I’m not a final fantasy fan but I’ve been hearing so much mixed shit that I don’t know what’s valid and what’s not excusable by the FF7 fan base.

what if the story is almost the same/very similar ?

Remake makes are the original with new ideas added to it and retold in a new way

a remaster is the same thing just looking modern

I wish people would learn the difference

>the original game with updated graphics?
That's called a remaster.

A remake needs to upgrade everything it can AND has the right to change the game entirely, as it is being reMADE. That's why FFVII Remake's plot goes a little different than the original FFVII. Remasters' stories should stay exactly how the original are, only getting the visuals/sound/etc to "today's" standards (the best quality possible at the time of the remaster) and fixing whatever problems the game may have. Changing the story would make it a remake.
>What type of remake do you enjoy more?
Honestly it depends on what game it is. Sometimes I prefer playing through a new version of the game entirely, sometimes I just want to relive the same experience but in high quality

A remake should be made with the spirit of the original in mind.
The tyrant in RE2 was intended to be a persistent threat, yet only attacks you in a couple rooms. The tyrant in the remake is, in fact, a persistent threat.

Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy is not a remake though
The developers themselves describe it as a "remaster plus", so more than a remaster and less than a remake

dont forget medievil is a great remaster

>I wish people would learn the difference
Its literally companies tho?I have never studied this,When the game has remastered at the end its just a port maybe with some hd textures and a filter if you are lucky, dont know what you re talking.

>When the game has remastered added at the end of the title
Pic example

Attached: 51nwO-c5npL._AC_.jpg (401x500, 46.88K)

The NST developers obviously had great respect for the original.
The same can't be said for the FF7R developers, who seem to be ashamed of the source material

REmake 1 is the ideal remaster. Recreates 90% of the original game with a few alterations that change the game massively, like the Crimson Heads, and ideally adds in cut content like Lisa Trevor or the Robot Squidward in that New Battle for Bikini Bottom remake.
FF7R isn't a remake so much as an original game that utilizes elements of the original FF7.

>New Battle for Bikini Bottom remake.
Literally made this thread after watching the trailer again

Should be treated like REmake 1

>and ideally adds in cut content like Lisa Trevor or the Robot Squidward in that New Battle for Bikini Bottom remake.
Wouldn't that make Battle for bikini bottom a reboot?

>For example FF7 is one of those few games that benefit from changing a lot of the core stuff
Well, you wanted (You)'s and here we are

If you like Final Fantasy gameplay you can just navigate dvd menus

Attached: file.png (474x394, 306.25K)

I mean terrible choice to appeal to the fans but obviously magnificient decision to appeal to new audiences,they knew exactly what they were doing.

That game was so awful. I remember getting a laugh out of the spliced movie segments and how they wouldn't actually make sense if you hadn't seen the movie since some of the characters never show up in the game

The way I think all Remakes should be handled is like Metroid Zero Mission. You have the same game with updated visuals, design, mechanics but most importantly, an option in the menu to just play the original, with its original graphics, original design, everything untouched.
That way it not only shows a lot more respect for what the Remake is based on as well as avoiding the potential problem of the original version being nearly impossible to play because the only version on sale is the remake, which might change things substantially for the worst.
Grim Fandango for example does something like this by allowing players to change between original graphics and updated graphics whenever they feel like.

That's explicitly a reboot.

I feel it would be cool the add the og game as a bonus for completing the remake

Remaster is just same game with better graphics
Remake is taking a game, remaking while either a. Changing a few things here n there but keeping the game the same or b. Just adding some extra.


Crash bandicoot trilogy is a remake
Crash racing is a remake
Spyro is a remake
Spongebob game is a remake
Ff7 is inbetween a remake and a sequel

TIME GHOSTS

That'd be by dream. So even something like RE2 Remake, which is a huge departure from the original in just about every way other than the setting, would benefit from just having a bonus option that lets you play the original 100% unchanged.
It also helps to avoid the usual problem we see with people dismissing all the work that was originally put into the game by people who just go "better graphics=better game". It not only respects and celebrates the original work as well as give the new devs a change to show their respect for the original.

Not really. Maybe a soft reboot if any at all.